Smashing Ground question

[RPGKid]

This has probably been asked a thousand times, but here's a scenario:

Player A has a D.D. Assailant and a Jinzo face-up on the field, and a Book of Moon face-down on the field.

Player B activates Smashing Ground.

Player A activates Book of Moon on D.D. Assailant.

Would Smashing Ground's effect jump to Jinzo or would the effect Disappear?

 

[Kyhotae]

Are you guys being purposefully obtuse? It does target. It just doesn't SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATE a target, that is, you don't choose a target. If it didn't target anything IT WOULD NOT DESTROY ANYTHING. It targets the monster with the highest DEF when it resolves, whatever that happens to be at the time.

People say that an effect "doesn't target" because they're too lazy to say that it "doesn't specifically designate a target."

 

[slither]

It still doesn't target, a more Appropriate way to say it would be, it searchers and finds.

 

[Digital Jedi]

Are you guys being purposefully obtuse? It does target. It just doesn't SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATE a target, that is, you don't choose a target. If it didn't target anything IT WOULD NOT DESTROY ANYTHING. It targets the monster with the highest DEF when it resolves, whatever that happens to be at the time.

People say that an effect "doesn't target" because they're too lazy to say that it "doesn't specifically designate a target."

Everyone is using the correct terminology. Targeting and designate are interchangeble terms in the Yu-Gi-Oh! TCG. A targeting effect will trip Spirit Reaper's self-destruction effect when it resolves. A non-targeting effect will not.

There is no distinction in this game between an effect that specifically designtaes a target and one that just targets. Sure, Konami likes to use the terms on different cards, but from a mechanics point of view if you say that Smashing Ground or Fissure or the like target, you'd be using incorrect game terminology. Specifically designating a taget and targeting are precisly the same thing. To say otherwise is contrary to nearly several thousand Judges List messages, several hundred rulings and the official rule book.

 

[masterwoo0]

Better yet, if I toss a ball in the air, and it happens to hit the ground and roll next to you, did I throw it at you, or did it just land near you by coincidence?

If I throw the ball straight at you, then there is no question that I am "choosing" to throw the ball in your direction.

If I activate Smashing Ground, it acts just like the ball I tossed in the air, only it just happens to land next to the highest defense monster every time, "by coincidence".

If I activate Raigeki Break, then it is more like the ball I am throwing in your direction.

 

[Kyhotae]

If you throw a ball in the air that's designed to target people that look like me and it rolls next to me, I'd say I was targeted. Sure I wasn't targeted by YOU, but the ball targeted me itself, by its design. A ball cannot "coincidentally" land next to the same kind of target every time unless it is designed to target that kind of target.

It's like trying to say that a heatseeking missile doesn't target. It does target. It targets the closest, most powerful heat source. That's what it's designed to do. I don't have to shoot the missile directly at the most powerful heat source, but the missile will still hit a target. The target that it's designed to hit. I know that it targets because a target blows up soon after it's launched. Now, it could SWITCH targets, but then it's targeting something else. Still it targets, however.

And I'm not contradicting anything. I realize that they USE the terms interchangeably, but that doesn't mean that the effects they're talking about don't ACTUALLY target. It means that they don't want to type out "specifically designate" every time they talk about the effect. It takes longer to type and everyone knows what they mean, so they skip it. But there's a reason that they use the term "specifically designate" in card effects (and it's not just because it "sounds cool" in Japanese). It's because it has a meaning in the mechanics of the game. "Fissure" and "Smashing Ground" target (they're aiming at SOMETHING, they just don't know what. If the original target is obscurred by a better target, it will hit the new target instead). "Tribute to The Doomed" specifically designates a target (it will destroy the same monster no matter how many new monsters are added, unless the monster is destroyed by something else first--in which case, the effect Disappears because it loses its target).

 

[slither]

I"Fissure" and "Smashing Ground" target (they're aiming at SOMETHING, they just don't know what.

So you're saying that if I take a road to nowhere because I don't know my destination, I can still target a location in mind??

They can't target something that is unknown, simple as that, it is like an egg hunt, you are looking for that golden egg but you don't know where it is, so you can't go directly towards it, when you find it you grab it and you're done.

You have a purpose but you can't go straight to the source.

 

[Tkwiget]

How you're reading Smashing Ground and understand what it says and means needs to flip around.

1. [Re: Freed the Matchless General] The effect of this card will not negate "Creature Swap", "Fissure", "Smashing Ground", "Dark Hole", "Raigeki", or similar Spell Cards that do not target.
2. [Re: Heart of Clear Water] A monster equipped with this card can still be destroyed by effects that do not target, such as the effects of "Fissure", "Dark Hole", "Smashing Ground", or "Torrential Tribute".
3. [Re: Lord of D.] "Lord of D." will NOT stop "Dark Hole", "Mirror Force", "Raigeki", "Fissure", "Smashing Ground", "Hammer Shot", or "Amazoness Archers", nor will he protect your Dragon-Type monsters from their effects, since these cards affect the whole field and do not select targets.
4. [Re: Pole Position] If "Pole Position" is active, and your opponent controls "Blue-Eyes White Dragon" and "Skull Servant", and you activate "Smashing Ground", "Blue-Eyes White Dragon" is unaffected by Spell Cards, so the effect of "Smashing Ground" Disappears.
5. [Re: Riryoku Field] This card cannot be used against "Fissure", "Smashing Ground", or "Dark Hole" because these cards do not target.
6. [Re: Ryu Senshi] The effect of this card will not negate "Creature Swap", "Fissure", "Smashing Ground", "Dark Hole", "Raigeki", or similar cards that do not target.

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Activation & Targeting Eligibility[/font] [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Many cards and effects can only be activated under certain conditions, or can only be used against certain targets. But because other cards and effects can be chained to them, and resolve before the original card resolves, those conditions aren't always still correct at the end of the chain. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In general, if a card has specific conditions in order to be activated, those conditions only have to be correct at the time the card is activated. If they are no longer correct when the card resolves, the card's effect still resolves. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]However, if a card has specific conditions regarding its target, and those conditions are no longer correct at the time the card is activated and when the card resolves, then the card's effect Disappears.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Examples of cards with specific conditions for activation, and how those conditions no longer have to be correct at resolution: [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Example #1: Player A has "Lord of D." face-up on the field and activates "The Flute of Summoning Dragon." Player B chains "Ring of Destruction" and destroys "Lord of D." "The Flute of Summoning Dragon" still resolves because its condition only had to be correct at activation. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Example #2: Player A has 2 cards in his hand and Player B has 6 cards in his hand. Player A activates "Gamble." Player B responds by chaining 2 "Mystical Space Typhoons" from his hand, so he now has 4 cards in his hand when "Gamble" resolves. "Gamble" still resolves because its condition only had to be correct at activation. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Example #3: Player A has no cards in his Graveyard and activates "Dimension Distortion." Player B chains with "Ring of Destruction" to destroy one of Player A's monsters on the field and send it to the Graveyard. When "Dimension Distortion" resolves, Player A now has 1 card in his Graveyard, but "Dimension Distortion" still resolves because its condition only had to be correct at activation. Examples of cards with specific conditions for selection of targets, and how those conditions must still be correct at resolution: [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Example #1: Player A activates "Ring of Destruction," targeting Player B's "Dark Magician." Player B chains "Book of Moon" to flip "Dark Magician" face-down. When "Ring of Destruction" resolves, its effect Disappears because it must target a face-up monster on the field. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Example #2: Player A Summons "Yata-Garasu." Player B activates "Eatgaboon" to destroy it. Player A chains "Rush Recklessly" to increase "Yata-Garasu"'s ATK by 700 points. When "Eatgaboon" resolves, its effect Disappears because it must target a monster with ATK 500 or less. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Example #3: "Mystic Plasma Zone" is active. Player A Summons "Lord of D." Player B activates "Trap Hole." Player A chains "Reverse Trap" to decrease "Lord of D."'s ATK by 500 points combined with "Mystic Plasma Zone." When "Trap Hole" resolves, its effect Disappears because it must target a monster with ATK 1000 or greater. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Example #4: Player A activates "Nobleman of Crossout", targeting Player B's face-down monster. Player B chains "Ceasefire", flipping all monsters face-up. When "Nobleman of Crossout" resolves, its effect Disappears because it must target a face-down monster. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Example #5: Player A activates "Nobleman of Extermination", targeting Player B's face-down card. Player B chains the card, which is "Waboku." When "Nobleman of Extermination" resolves, its effect Disappears because it must target a face-down Spell or Trap Card. Example #6: Player A activates "Nobleman of Extermination", targeting Player B's face-down card. Player B chains the card, which is "Gravity Bind." When "Nobleman of Extermination" resolves, its effect Disappears because it must target a face-down Spell or Trap Card.[/font]

[/font]

Those are the rule listing of Smashing Ground and part of the Advanced Gameplay FAQ information from the official site.

Source Link Here

 

[Digital Jedi]

And I'm not contradicting anything. I realize that they USE the terms interchangeably, but that doesn't mean that the effects they're talking about don't ACTUALLY target. It means that they don't want to type out "specifically designate" every time they talk about the effect. It takes longer to type and everyone knows what they mean, so they skip it. But there's a reason that they use the term "specifically designate" in card effects (and it's not just because it "sounds cool" in Japanese). It's because it has a meaning in the mechanics of the game. "Fissure" and "Smashing Ground" target (they're aiming at SOMETHING, they just don't know what. If the original target is obscurred by a better target, it will hit the new target instead). "Tribute to The Doomed" specifically designates a target (it will destroy the same monster no matter how many new monsters are added, unless the monster is destroyed by something else first--in which case, the effect Disappears because it loses its target).

That is a wholly inacurate statement. Your argueing semantics of the english language against the templating of terminology of the card game. Translation ahs nothing to do with it. An effect is either targeting or non-targeting. End of story.

This is not the only TCG that distinguishes between targeting effects and non-tageting effect. In VS, if an effect doesn' use the phrase "target" then it is not a teargeting effect, regardles if you choose something at eh cards resolution. The Yu-Gi-Oh! card game has always been the same, only they have not consistantly used the word "target" for targeting effects. Sometimes they use the word "choose", designate (without the word target), select.

And I'm not contradicting anything. I realize that they USE the terms interchangeably, but that doesn't mean that the effects they're talking about don't ACTUALLY target

Yes, You most certainly are contradicting the game rules. Because your statement "that doesn't mean that the effects don't ACTUALLY target" is completly contrary to the definition of the term "target" in this card game. Your applying grammatical defintions which do not apply here, since the game developers determin what a card ACTUALLY does.

 

[BenjaminMS]

Shall we stop breaking him into parts?

 

[Kyhotae]

So you're saying that if I take a road to nowhere because I don't know my destination, I can still target a location in mind??

They can't target something that is unknown, simple as that, it is like an egg hunt, you are looking for that golden egg but you don't know where it is, so you can't go directly towards it, when you find it you grab it and you're done.

You have a purpose but you can't go straight to the source.

Whether or not YOU have a destination target in mind is irrelevant. The ROAD has a destination (a target) that it will take you to whether you like it or not. That's the point.

And I'm not arguing semantics of English, I'm arguing semantics of the game. The game is replete with effects that negate effects that "specifically designate a target". Whether or not the judges use that terminology when explaining a ruling is completely secondary to the point that these cards find a target (without the input of the player) and destroy it. They don't know or care what the target is, but when they find it, they'll destroy it. If the wording wasn't important, then they wouldn't include it in the card effects. They'd go on with their lazy use of "targeting/non-targeting" effects even on the cards themselves, yet they do not.

Oh, and quoting wording from judges in rulings about a card when I've already explained that they are the ones that have shortened "do not specify a specific target" to "do not target" is pointless.

 

[BenjaminMS]

Uhm... seems to be you still don't understand what we mean, do you? *Calls John Danker and Soulwarrior* True, 'non-targeting cards' lead after all the card to destruction. But only upon resolution. That is the difference between your explanation and the correct explanation. This makes the difference between understanding the game so-so and good. Sometimes, new members are confused by the terms used here. But it is one of the only ways to truly explain it both correct and understandable. That's it I have to say about it at the moment.

 

[Kyhotae]

I understand what you mean. You mean the exact same thing that I do, you just seem to like to argue about it. And actually, it's explanations like yours that confuse people. Since EVERYONE knows that "Fissure" and "Smashing Ground" target, when they hear someone tell them that they don't, they get confused. If you explain that they don't specifically designate a target in the way that I have, it makes actual sense in regards to the card effects and is actually what the judges have in mind when they say "it doesn't target."

 

[DH2K4]

I understand what you mean. You mean the exact same thing that I do, you just seem to like to argue about it. And actually, it's explanations like yours that confuse people. Since EVERYONE knows that "Fissure" and "Smashing Ground" target, when they hear someone tell them that they don't, they get confused. If you explain that they don't specifically designate a target in the way that I have, it makes actual sense in regards to the card effects and is actually what the judges have in mind when they say "it doesn't target."

"Since EVERYONE knows that Fissure and Smashing Ground target"

But they don't target, they never did target, and they never will.

When you play Fissure/Smashing Ground/Hammer Shot, are you, to put it basically, pointing to a monster on your opponent's field and saying "I choose you, Pikachu" (sorry).

You are actually playing the card, looking at your opponent's field, and moving the monster with the highest/lowest ATK/DEF to the graveyard, you never point to it, choose it, select it nothing, you have no control over what goes.

 

[masterwoo0]

Whether or not YOU have a destination target in mind is irrelevant. The ROAD has a destination (a target) that it will take you to whether you like it or not. That's the point.

The point is, you are missing the entire point.

If you blindfold me and spin me around in a circle, take off the blindfold and tell me to walk straight ahead, with NO DEVIATION; I can guarantee to you that eventually I will walk into "something". Is it a target, or "some target"? Is it something I just ran into, or something I purposely searched for?

"Everything" is a target. The problem is, you are calling all card interactions "targets" when they are not always the intended target as far as from the player's selective point of view.

The Player is the only one who can select a target. If a card effect selects the target on its own, then it is not considered "targeting" for the simple fact that the player had no involvement with directing the effect to a single source. The only time a player may select the destruction of a monster when Smashing Ground is activated is when there are multiple targets with the SAME defense, and that still does not indicate a targeting effect, only selective resolution.

This is not a catch all by any means, but unless your opponent has only one monster on the field, how many of us find ourselves looking at multiple face-up monster's stats everytime we activate Smashing Ground? That in itself should tell you that it isnt a targeting effect if you have to make sure you destroy the right monster....

 

[Tkwiget]

The point is, you are missing the entire point.

If you blindfold me and spin me around in a circle, take off the blindfold and tell me to walk straight ahead, with NO DEVIATION; I can guarantee to you that eventually I will walk into "something". Is it a target, or "some target"? Is it something I just ran into, or something I purposely searched for?

"Everything" is a target. The problem is, you are calling all card interactions "targets" when they are not always the intended target as far as from the player's selective point of view.

The Player is the only one who can select a target. If a card effect selects the target on its own, then it is not considered "targeting" for the simple fact that the player had no involvement with directing the effect to a single source. The only time a player may select the destruction of a monster when Smashing Ground is activated is when there are multiple targets with the SAME defense, and that still does not indicate a targeting effect, only selective resolution.

This is not a catch all by any means, but unless your opponent has only one monster on the field, how many of us find ourselves looking at multiple face-up monster's stats everytime we activate Smashing Ground? That in itself should tell you that it isnt a targeting effect if you have to make sure you destroy the right monster....

^^^^ Another correct and very awesome explaination.

If Smashing Ground targets, it would target upon activation. I have a Berserk Gorilla and Master of Oz on the field. My opponent activates his Smashing Ground. It's going to destroy Master of Oz, but the player didn't target anything. However, before Smashing Ground resolves I chain Book of Moon and flip my Master of Oz face down.

This is where your logic is completely flawed. If Smashing Ground actually does target then the effect would Disappear from the field when it resolves. It would destroy Berserk Gorilla (like in this example) because it doesn't target at activation.

Target
Choose
Designate
Select

Those are all terms used with cards dealing with target effects. According to your logic it would make cards like Mirror Force and Curse of Anubis target monsters when they actually don't. You claim to argue the sematics of the game when you're playing off a false and very incorrect meaning behind the way Smashing Ground works.

Don't make libal statements that don't speak for the majority of the players and judges in this game. You claim that "EVERYONE" knows that Fissure and Smashing Ground target, yet there's rulings and established game mechanics that are two or three years old that say differently. These mechanics and rules aren't outdated and they won't ever change.

Another piece of information I'd like to bring up is a card called Bottomless Trap Hole. It doesn't target, yet according to your logic it does because you activate it in responce to a monster or monsters that your opponent summons with 1500 attack and higher.

Fissure
Smashing Ground
Mirror Force
Bottomless Trap Hole
Hammer Shot
Curse of Anubis

According to your logic it changes thousands of situations that have been established as solid base core mechanics for this game. Konami isn't going to change their mind unless they have a very good and definate reason to do so.

 

[slither]

I really don't know where this topic is going any more... I think many of us have tried to explain Kyhotae the same thing over and over from different points of view, and apparently we are getting nowhere...

Anyone else agrees?

 

[Digital Jedi]

I understand what you mean. You mean the exact same thing that I do, you just seem to like to argue about it. And actually, it's explanations like yours that confuse people. Since EVERYONE knows that "Fissure" and "Smashing Ground" target, when they hear someone tell them that they don't, they get confused. If you explain that they don't specifically designate a target in the way that I have, it makes actual sense in regards to the card effects and is actually what the judges have in mind when they say "it doesn't target."

This is a very serious problem here. Your insisting that your terminoloigy is correct, but you are missing the point. "Target" and "specifically designate a target" are EXACTLY the same thing and EXACTLY the opposite of non-targeting. This is something that the Judges List has spent years trying to pound into our heads and you are arguing that it's not the case.

Your completly caught up in a misconception. Everyone (well most everyone) actually knows the exact opposite of what you are saying and has known it for years. There is a reason that they call them non-targeting effects. Because they do not target. Your using a game term for a card that does not use that game term and therby you end up being the one making it confusing.

This is one of the simplest explanations in the game and your making it overly complicated by insisting something that has been explained to us for years isn't true. It doesn't matter how Fissure or Smashing Ground or Bottomless Trap Hole choose the monster for destruction. It doesn't matter if they are chosen by the card or by the opponent or by Skippy the Wonder Poodle. The fact remains that "target" is a game term chosen by the developers of the game. It only applies to and can only be used with cards that they have deemed perform this action. Cards that do not perform this action, do not do it. They don't sort of do it. They don't techincaly do it. They don't do it all. The reason why is to dileneate between two different kind of effects.

Your also completely caught up in the use of the phrase "specificaly designate". That's not a phrase stating that there are two knds of targeting effects. there is only one and only has ever been one kind of targeting effect.

Your basicaly trying to tell people that one effect is MORE targeting then another. If you take this concept to any forum, to any tournament, to any Q&A your going to be told the EXACT same thing.

Better yet I'll let Curtis Shultz put it to you:
http://lists.upperdeck.com/read/messages?id=7104#7104

If I have 2 monsters on my side of the field and my opponent activates Smashing Ground and both of the defense on my monsters are the same, who gets to choose which monster is destroyed? me, the controller of the monsters, or them, the controller of Smashing Ground.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer:

When the opponent has multiple monsters tied for the highest DEF, the controller of "Smashing Ground" decides which monster is destroyed.


Example:
I control a face-up "Ojama Green" and "Ojama Yellow," and no other monsters. My opponent activates "Smashing Ground." When the effect resolves, both of my monsters are tied for highest DEF on my side of the field, so my opponent will decide which is destroyed. Either "Ojama Green" or "Ojama Yellow." The choice is theirs.

----------------------------------
Curtis Schultz
Official UDE Netrepâ„¢
CurtisSchultz_netrep@hotmail.com

http://lists.upperdeck.com/read/messages?id=7104#7104

Just to follow up on this, I was curious in the situation when opponent gets to choose the monster that is destroyed by a card that does not taget such as Smashing Ground or Fissure, does that cards effect then considered to be targetting a monster?


------------------------------------------------------------

Answer:

It does not target. "Smashing Ground" never targets.

It is simply a ruling issued to handle a situation that needed to be resolved. It does not alter the mechanics of the card.

----------------------------------
Curtis Schultz
Official UDE Netrepâ„¢
CurtisSchultz_netrep@hotmail.com

 

[Entropy]

I think what he's saying is that it "little t" targets. Not "big T" Targets, the game mechanic, but "little t" targets, as per the dictionary definition.

Y'know, like how a politician can be liberal without belonging to the Liberal Party?

 

[masterwoo0]

It is better to just avoid using the term "target" altogether with talking about the effect of Smashing Ground and Fissure. They don't, so why imply that they do, even if it's a little, and create more confusion?

 

[anthonyj]

I think what he's saying is that it "little t" targets. Not "big T" Targets, the game mechanic, but "little t" targets, as per the dictionary definition.

Y'know, like how a politician can be liberal without belonging to the Liberal Party?

But what would make you think that the dictionary definition of a specific word used as a game term would be an Appropriate word to argue about on a Yu-Gi-Oh rules forum?